Considerable media coverage greeted the welcome news last week that Duke has pledged $1.25 million over five years to expand the Law School’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic and Innocence Project.

Said Jim Coleman, the driving force behind the project and the voice of moral clarity in the lacrosse affair, “The lacrosse case attracted a lot of publicity, but is not the only case in which innocent people have suffered harm through the state’s legal system.”

Associate Dean Theresa Newman added, “What we hope to be able to do is certainly educate more of our students on the causes of wrongful convictions and other aspects of the criminal justice system. We're also hoping to reach out beyond the walls of the law school to the Durham community, the Piedmont region, the state of North Carolina, the Southeast and even beyond that.”

Intriguingly, the program envisions an undergraduate component as well. Based on events of the past 18 months, this initiative should be housed in the Economics Department.

---------

For those who haven’t yet seen it, Johnsville News has a new feature, “The Duke Saga in Pictures,” that takes the case from start to finish in a visual form.

---------

Friday and Saturday, I will be in Durham to participate in Duke Law School’s “Court of Public Opinion” conference. Former federal judge David F. Levi, now dean of Duke Law School, noted, “All of these cases raise fundamental questions about the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the public, and about appropriate conduct by members of the bench, bar and media in response to intense public interest.”

I’m presenting at a panel on the new media and high-profile cases; and will have several posts on the other panels as the conference proceeds.

---------

More than one week after the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People formally endorsed Victoria Peterson—a vicious homophobe who urged burning down the lacrosse house, appeared on the platform with the leader of a hate group, and suggested that Duke Hospital had tampered with DNA evidence—the Herald-Sun editorial pages have had nothing to say about the move.

Imagine if, say, Friends of Durham had endorsed a white candidate who appeared with the KKK; suggested that all gay people were cross-dressers who would die of AIDS; and had advocated burning down Crystal Mangum’s house. Does anyone believe that Bob Ashley would have been silent?

The silence speaks volumes about the paper’s more general philosophy.

---------

So, what does concern Editor Ashley and his colleagues on the editorial page? Resurrecting the Campus Culture Initiative report, which was produced by a committee spearheaded by anti-lacrosse extremists Peter Wood, Anne Allison, and Karla Holloway; and which included Chauncey Nartey, the Duke student who sent an e-mail the Presslers considered threatening to their daughter.

Unsurprisingly, given this composition, the CCI produced a report that appeared to indulge the wildest fantasies of the Group of 88.

Last week, Ashley and his board expressed displeasure that Duke provost Peter Lange appeared unwilling to endorse the CCI’s extremist proposals.

“We hope the university will keep focusing on some of the worthy goals contained in the initial report. It said that the stereotype of Duke students as hard-working and hard-partying should be challenged. The campus should become ‘a more inclusive academic community . . . in which openness and engagement with difference of all types . . . are expected and supported.’ It also suggested reevaluating the university's policies on alcohol use and athletics. All of those analyses should continue.”

Ashley, et al., continued, “There are those who will say that because the lacrosse charges were found to be bogus, any concerns or issues raised by the case are also bogus. We don’t buy that, and we don’t think the university does either.”

The latter statement could well be true. But it’s equally true that those who so misjudged lacrosse events—such as the Group of 88 or Ashley’s Herald-Sun—have lost any and all credibility to lecture others on the appropriate lessons to draw from the case.

---------

Last week, in an interview with Boston’s public radio station, Ashley was asked, given the repeated inaccuracies in his paper’s editorials, whether he feared a libel suit against the Herald-Sun.

His quite astonishing response? “That’s probably the sort of thing that’s best for me not to comment on, one way or the other, quite frankly.” (The quoted item appears at 21.21 of the linked interview.)

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his own work. I’ll have much more on this interview in Tuesday’s post.

---------

The N&Oreports that the Durham DA’s office has dropped trespassing charges against Group of 88 stalwart Anne Allison and anti-lacrosse extremist Orin Starn. (The duo had been cited for trespassing as part of their latest ideological crusade.)

The decision, at least, spared the office the burden of prosecuting two people who did so much to bolster the DA office’s basic storyline over the past 18 months.

---------

Camille Paglia has an incisive and delightfully written review of three new gender studies books in this week's Chronicle of Higher Education. Her essay serves as a reminder that the one-sided response in the lacrosse case from advocates of the race/class/gender trinity is a commonplace occurrence on academic issues that attract little or no outside attention.

Her concluding passage: “When any field becomes a closed circle, the result is groupthink and cant. The stultifying clichés of gender studies must end. But in the meantime, all faculty members should vow, through their own scholarly idealism rather than by external coercion, not to impose their political or sexual ideology on impressionable students, who deserve better.”

--------

Delaware attorney general Beau Biden (son of the senator and presidential candidate) had a powerful editorial last week explaining why Mike Nifong’s actions were so harmful. He wrote that prosecutors playing to the media “further erode[s] the public’s confidence in the fair administration of justice.

“One such extreme example is Mike Nifong, the former district attorney, who falsely prosecuted three members of the Duke University lacrosse team and conducted more than 50 newspaper and television interviews before any indictments.

“As The Los Angeles Times observed, Mr. Nifong ‘lost control of his tongue and participated in the transformation of this incident from a case into a cause—usually an ominous development for the administration of justice.’

“Rogue prosecutors like Nifong use the media for strategic advantage in criminal cases. They have been known to conduct perp walks, hold ‘over-the-top’ press conferences, issue inflammatory press releases and leak opportunistic information to favored journalists, all in the name of obtaining a conviction and furthering their own careers.

“At the same time, such conduct has helped sell newspapers and boosted television ratings. This conduct has created an unholy alliance between the media and the few prosecutors who engage in such behavior.

“This is simply unacceptable.

“Win-at-all-cost practices violate a prosecutor’s sacred and ethical duty to protect the accused’s right to a fair and impartial trial.

“Moreover, they are inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional principle that all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“As the American Bar Association’s standards for criminal justice advise, a prosecutor should not make any public statement he or she ‘knows or reasonably should know ... will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding.’

“The rush to judgment—or to comment—on the part of prosecutors like Nifong and the media understandably erodes people’s confidence in the administration of justice. Such conduct makes it harder for the vast majority of honorable and committed prosecutors to do their jobs.”

---------

Finally, a scheduling announcement. In the past few weeks, it has become increasingly clear that some case-related events (the civil suit against Durham, the possible launch of a federal criminal inquiry, the fate of the Whichard Committee, perhaps a few other matters) will extend beyond the blog’s scheduled closing date of October 1.

As a result, I am planning weekly posts, every Monday, for October and probably into November. This handful of posts will be limited in nature—along the lines of several recent posts that summarized key events, quotes, or people in the case. They will, in essence, be an afterword to the blog.

I didn’t want to leave the blog in an incomplete state, and, since most case-related matters are either winding down or (as with a possible criminal inquiry) transitioning into events beyond the scope of this blog, this approach seemed to me the most sensible one.

121 comments:

Anonymous
said...

"I didn’t want to leave the blog in an incomplete state, and, since most case-related matters are either winding down or (as with a possible criminal inquiry) transitioning into events beyond the scope of this blog, this approach seemed to me the most sensible one."

Duke Law School seems to be busy all of a sudden. How nice, money for this, a forum for that.

Where were they when their students were being railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor, operating within a rotten system, all under their noses for years? Sorry, but this strikes me as a hollow effort, long after others did the heavy lifting, after the students and parents had sleepless nights, threats from the Black Panthers, had their university officials invite outsiders in to castigate them for crimes that never occurred. Like the rest of the Duke faculty who stood by and did NOTHING while their peers and so-called colleagues expressed disdain for their own students and their way of life, openly racist remarks from tenured professors, the “great legal scholars” of the Law School sat on their hands. NOW you want to do something? NOW?

With an even representation thoughout the Triangle area, people seem to be against the 30 million being discussed.

The N&O editorial staff has added to this sentiment, no doubt, by printing their views on the matter. But why not explain the difference in this case and the ones in the past?

Those like the Gell and the Dail cases are not the same. These men were sent to prison because of things unknown and certainly they were not known to be innocent before being prosecuted.

The lacrosse case stands out as being much more troubling and vile because these men were being prosecuted even though the district attorney, the police department, the press, and most of the public knew there was no evidence.

Yet we witnessed this case continue to move ahead...with all the knowledge and with such a total lack of evidence.

Intent is what this civil suit is about.

This is to punish those who engaged in pure evil, bastardizing the judicial system.

Those cases that LAX detractors love to use as a comparison were the result of what was not known at the time......certainly not to the extent of Durham's fiasco.

If the News & Observer had the motivation inside its editorial offices to explore and illuminate these distinctions, then an ignorant and biased public would not now be whipped-up over this civil suit against Durham.

I've just read the Paglia review KC cited. She--and KC--make the mistake of collapsing three books from different fields into "Gender Studies." (She should also have been more clear about the difference between Women's Studies and Gender Studies) Why the collapsing? An historian--as one of the authors cited is--who writes on the history of sexuality produces a volume that will be of interest to far more people than those involved in gender studies. For you who aren't knee jerk anti-gender studies people, parts of the Paglia interview are complimentary. For those of you who find gender studies part of a conspiracy to downgrade American academia: Watch out! It's gone worldwide. One of the books--a revised Dutch doctorate--was published in Amsterdam (Attitudes towards sex in the Netherlands are rather different than in the US, but that's OT.) EEEEEEEEEEEEKKKK!

Warning: Read this later in the morning, but make sure you do before you've eaten. It's stomach-turning for this beast to be opining about "hypocrisy".

Hypocrisy -- feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not -- is as old as humanity and has been condemned just as long. Homer and Confucius lambasted the behavior, as did Chaucer and Shakespeare. When he wasn't decrying "ye hypocrites," Jesus was asking, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

The charge retains great force today, especially in America, said William H. Chafe, a history professor at Duke University.

"Generally speaking, Europeans and people in other parts of the world are less intent on having people be completely consistent," he said. "They don't see anything wrong with a French foreign minister or a French president defending family values and having an affair."

Americans, Chafe said, are more influenced by a cocktail of Puritanism and anti-intellectualism that leads us to embrace the moral argument while "detesting" what seems like "hair-splitting and seeming contradictions. We tend to favor the simple truth over arguments full of nuance."

I wanted to have a Preface to this post because I believe that it would be a first for K.C. Johnson's comment section.

II. FORWARD

See "Preface" above.

III. THE START OF THE REAL POST

It is now common knowledge that political correctness is a religion, even though it is preached, ironically, by many who would eschew any other faith-based pursuits. "Correctology," as it is called, shares all of the distinguishing traits of religion, including a creation theory, a set of rules, logical fallacies that require a measure of "faith" and even sacred words. In fact, a recent peer-reviewed study found Correctology to be canonically and chromosomally indistinguishable from Scientology.

IV. ACTUALLY, THIS IS THE NEW STUFF

An as yet unexplored area in which Correctology shares characteristics with other major religions is this: All religions promote certain beliefs, values and actions and discourage others. For example, Hinduism is a very cattle-friendly religion. Hindus encourage cattle-friendliness because the animals are believed to be sacred. It is no surprise then that a fine steak knife set, which literally might be used to strike at a sacred belief, no matter how trendy, is discouraged as a Hindu wedding gift.

Religions discourage those beliefs, values and actions that might lead to divisive inquiry into the religions' central tenets. Hence, the classic battle between science and faith has been fought from Galileo to Darwin to Darrow to Summers.

V. FEMINISM V. LARRY SUMMERS

The brilliant ultra-anti-contra-feminist Camille Paglia has stated that "Woman is the dominant sex" because men have to constantly "flex" things just to gain woman's attention. This goes further than the standard feminist saw, which is that men and women are equal.

Anyone who adheres to the "equal" standard will get a pass from the priestesses of feminism. Anyone who points out the (seemingly obvious) differences in genitalia, fashion sense or algebraic abilities is persona non grata because such reflective inquiry into a central tenet might discover its illusory nature.

VI. RACISM V. DUKE LACROSSE

The lacrosse players unwittingly and involuntarily challenged central taboos of "Racism," which is another large sect of Correctology that believes all answers are pigment-based. One of the gospels of Racism (or "metanarrative" as the Racialists like to say) is that everyone is equal in all things. (Racialists do not explain why, if everyone is equal in all things, diversity is needed).

The Duke lacrosse players were equally susceptible to hatred for raping black women, even though government statistics proved that Duke lacrosse players don't rape black women. Any suggestion otherwise, was heretical or "racist" ideology, as it struck at a central tenet of the religion.

VII. CONCLUSION

Every being of flesh or human construction capable of preserving itself will fight to the death to do so. In the case of Racism and Feminism, the best way to avoid extinction is to keep the genders and races apart. Furthermore, science, logic, math or statistics can only be trusted to point out the inherent logical fallacies in any religion. Therefore, their use must be discouraged.

[NOTE: The parody above is the work of the author and should not be inflicted on any rational person]_______________

"Not only does K.C. know the meaning of life, he can divide it by zero." BOOK OF SCIENTOLOGY, at Preface (Hubbard, 1952). MOO! Gregory

I wonder if "Correctology" isn't a form-variant of Co-rectology, the kind we associate with inflammation of the epithelium of the distal end of the digestive lumen, which - as an inflammatory agent - migrates so far to the north that it interferes with vision (AKA "oculorectitis.") Such an inflammatory process is known to give one a "shitty outlook on life," and is particularly evident in many signing the so-called "listening statement," which are both one-and-the-same.

Bob Ashley's commentary about the CCI is fascinating, too: expecting CCI to be embraced by Duke is like endorsing Pol Pot as the remedy for Cambodia!

Is it true that the other lacrosse team members have organized and are considering/planning a lawsuit? This has been mentioned several places. Maybe this would put additional pressure and spotlight on Brodhead et al, and the Board would act, finally. (Still hoping for his exit from Duke. Why/how is he still there?)

I wonder whether Duke's decision to expand its Wrongful Convictions project was actually one of the terms of the settlement with the three wrongfully-accused lacrosse players. It seems hard to imagine that Brodhead thought this up all by his spineless little self.

I was glad to see that over at VC several posters questioned your interpretation of the G88 ad and associated conclusions.

In particular I quote another guest:All that said, it's still a grossly unfair and tendentious reading of the statement to associate it with the "Castrate" banner at one of the protests--even though KC doesn't seem to be able to mention the one without reflexively mentioning the other.

Bob H asked where the Duke law school was during the case. Well, among other things, students and faculty were running a clinic to help prisoners at Guantanomo who gleefully admit their desire for a theocracy that would have no need for lawyers. Wally Delinger, who taught me Constitutional law, was challengng the Solomon amendment (no Federal funds for a university that bars military recruiters). Duke law barred JAG Corps. because of the no ask, no tell law on homosexuals. I oppose no ask, but JAG has no control over it. Duke Law has invited congressmen/women who voted for no ask/no tell to speak. Wally and his crew lost in the Supreme Court by unanimous decision, so he must have seen it coming. Nevertheless he found time for windmill jousting, but even after being urged to speak out, remained MUTE on Nifong.

My fellow Dukies at my church are giving Duke $.88 when solicited this year to protest the gang of 88.

FBI reviewing anti-Jena 6 Web page"The FBI is reviewing a white supremacist Web site that purports to list the addresses of five of the six black teenagers accused of beating a white student in Jena and "essentially called for their lynching," an agency spokeswoman said Saturday."

Well, it's easy to see how much of the general comments about bigotry, privilege and discrimination made by the G88 member are actionable items, but this is only true, as it turns out, as it applies to the G88 members themselves.

Did you read Wahneema's email? The one where she said that it was about the "Duke lacrosse incident?"

Guess not.

Critics of his commentary - people who've said that the listening statement was about race and sex in general - are proven wrong. Signatories - unless they really don't know how to read - knew that they were signing an anti-lacrosse statement.

Bob Ashley on Nifong's re-election said "I’m glad it will be resolved in the judicial system, not at the ballot box.”Now he is going to get his wish in the civil trial against Durham.

It's a trifecta. Official misdeeds will be aired in court. The bigotry of Durham will be exposed (remember: "Nifong's reelection is proof that rich white boys can't buy justice in Durham"). The City will pay big.

You have a point: when a Judge by the name of Stephens allows verbal threats to be uttered in his courtroom, rational people would have to conclude that the FBI might've been called in - (or that at least some action on the part of the judge would have been taken...) Stephens inaction makes it an official lynching.

Not that the Nazis (Socialists) in Roanoke are any better: they're stupid jackboots, who ought to go make love with the NBPP of North Korealina. Both groups are cowardly creeps from hell.

I hope that KC Johnson keeps this blog up & running. It provides a wonderful window into the nasty right wing of the US. It keeps you guys off the streets and increasingly supports assertions of KC's right-wing nastiness. Yes, yes, he supports B. Obama, so he has to be liberal. I don't think so.

How beautifully put! Intent was the difference. Of course, there are those who will deny an intent to deceive (yeah, right) and want us to believe that their indiscretions were totally remiss.Let the lawsuits begin. Are they warranted--you bet. It really doesn't matter whether the good people of Duhhhh have to come out of their pockets. They elected these idiots and now they pay for their stupidity. Maybe they can get the IRS to allow a deduction for a stupid tax.

"Well, it's easy to see how much of the general comments about bigotry, privilege and discrimination made by the G88 member are actionable items, but this is only true, as it turns out, as it applies to the G88 members themselves."

"I hope that KC Johnson keeps this blog up & running. It provides a wonderful window into the nasty right wing of the US. It keeps you guys off the streets and increasingly supports assertions of KC's right-wing nastiness."

Many of the post on this blog are from people who look at the facts and then try to draw a logical conclusion based on the facts. If you can argue with someone based on facts instead of name calling you are far more likely to change someone’s opinion.

“When somebody persuades me I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?”— John Maynard Keynes

These were white supremacists, Turner Diary nuts, not the black supremacists like the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago - (the one that Obama is scheduled to speak at soon) - nor the Houston Bakeresque/Mark Anthony Neal black supremacists. I haven't had the opportunity to meet with them personally. Except when their proteges walk up and down my street, mumbling stuff about "whitem'f'ers."

Having heard the Turner Diary-type nutjobs in person, I understand how dangerous they are.

By tarring people like KC "right wing," she proves that she lives in an isolated, privileged community of leftwing thinkalikes, and that there is no ammunition left in her arsenal.

The Duke Lacrosse Saga in Pictures in the Johnsville News reminds us once again that from the very beginning Durham Police knew that 1) CGM has given contradictory versions of events, 2) Kim Roberts had indicated the whole thing was a crock, and 3) no one had laid a hand on CGM. So it was obvious the story didn’t make much sense, but DPD and Nifong kept going as though they had an open and shut case. Once you add the time-stamped photos to the mix, then it became clear that she was severely impaired during the party, so her testimony went from contradictory to meaningless. When the DNA results came back in April it should have been 100% clear that she was delusional, but Nifong still went to NCCU the next day to insist the case was not going to go away. One day in jail is not enough for this man. It’s not even enough for Gottlieb, Wilson, and Addison.

BTW, the photo essay also reminds us that, contrary to popular opinion in DIW, Brodhead HAS apologized: “I am sorry the woman and her friend [sic] were subjected to such abuse.” Is that the best you can do, Dicky? Speaking for myself, anyone who gives me $400 for five minutes of work can insult me as much as they want!

It's difficult to turn on the television, pick up a newspaper or log on to a news Web site these days without being bombarded with the campaign for president.

That's an important election, to be sure.

It also is still more than a year away, even the earliest caucuses and primaries won't come until early 2008 (OK, maybe very late 2007, the way states are jockeying to be first), and here in North Carolina we won't be meaningful participants in the nomination process. The nominees may well will be settled by the time our primary rolls around.

But coming at us much more quickly are elections that will impact policy close to home -- local government elections in Chapel Hill, Durham, Carrboro and many other area towns.

As a result of The Herald-Sun's new policy of endorsing candidates, we've had an opportunity to spend some time individually with each of the 10 candidates for the Durham City Council, and that experience prompts some observations.

We are starting slowly with our endorsement efforts, undertaking just the Durham municipal elections this year. And, because there is an Oct. 9 primary for the council but not for the mayoral race, we've talked only with the council candidates. We'll be interviewing mayoral candidates Bill Bell and Thomas Stith next month.

On the council front, voters have a diverse set of choices. I hope that those of you who vote in Durham will take advantage of candidate forums, our coverage, and the insights offered by the endorsements of political action groups such as the Peoples Alliance, the Friends of Durham and the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.

All candidates struck me as earnest, and most had thought pretty seriously about what it would mean to be a council member and what they could bring, or would like to bring, to the office.

To be fair, a couple appear to have waded into waters that were much deeper than they anticipated, and without much clue as to what to do now that they are there.

But I've seldom been through a local election cycle where that wasn't true of a candidate or two. The fact that well-meaning folks sometimes greatly underestimate the challenge of seeking public office makes their civic enthusiasm no less real.

And, as always, I greatly respect the commitment that it takes for someone to campaign for -- not to mention serve -- in local government. As incumbents note, sometimes ruefully if still enthusiastically, the time demands are often even greater than they appear from the outside.

Moreover, in a city where debate can be as tumultuous as Durham, to run for office is to be willing to take a fair amount of verbal shelling.

That said, voters will have an opportunity to weigh different approaches to some of the city's key issues, ranging from crime to economic development to the nuts and bolts of street maintenance and other basic services.

In the mayoral campaign especially, we're seeing a campaign unfold with some serious punching and counter punching on those issues, and the process of debate and deliberation is valuable.

While the candidates are campaigning business at full tilt right now, it's worth mentioning that the time is fast approaching for citizens to step up to their far less taxing but equally vital part of this operation.

The early voting period is already underway, and closes Oct. 6.

If you haven't registered to vote yet, it's not too late, even for the primary. Under a new state law, you can register right up to the end of the early voting period. (The general election is Nov. 6.)

We're wrapping up our internal discussions of the candidates now, and expect to run our endorsements within the next several days. I should note that the endorsement decisions will be made by our editorial page staff, the publisher and myself.

Two news-side executives, Managing Editor Nancy Wykle and Metro Editor Dan Way, have joined us for the interviews, bringing valuable perspectives and gleaning important understandings of the candidates and the issues to help guide our coverage.

But as the folks most directly in charge of that news coverage, they won't be participating in the endorsement discussions or decisions.

Another stellar candidate--along the lines of Victoria Peterson--throws his hat into the ring for mayor of Durham.

LIS!!!

Paul Scott throws hat into mayoral race

By BriAnne Dopart : The Herald-Sun

Minister Paul Scott, a longtime Durham activist, officially announced his plans to run for mayor Saturday.

At a downtown press conference attended only by a Herald-Sun reporter and a cameraman for a Raleigh television station, Scott said his write-in candidacy would offer voters "something new besides people saying 'let's get tough on crime.' "

Referring to Mayor Bill Bell and his rival Thomas Stith as "Crime and Crimer," Scott said the city needed someone to look at the source of crime, not just how to handle criminals.

The right person to do that, he said, was someone who knew more about what the city's street-level constituents were up to.

"I'm very in touch with this hip-hop generation," he said. "I'm in touch from the trailer parks to the 'hood."

To research his voter base, he said, he's visited local barbershops and heard that what Durham residents want are more activities for youths.

"See this large space?" Scott asked, gesturing to the largely empty downtown CCB Plaza. "You have this wide-open space right here that's not even utilized. Why not have poetry readings, skateboarders, jugglers here? If [the city's current programs] were working, this place wouldn't be empty."

Reached for comment Saturday, Bell and Stith welcomed the third candidate.

"Everybody is free to run as long as they meet the criteria," Bell said, "That's one of the great parts of our political system."

Stith echoed the mayor's comments and encouraged Scott to read more about his campaign agenda.

Scott said he was a player behind the scenes in 2005 mayoral candidate Jackie Wagstaff's attempt to bring hip-hop culture into the city's political mix. While he wouldn't say why he thought Wagstaff's campaign was unsuccessful (she received 545 votes, about 4.3 percent), he said the difference between his campaign and hers is that he's very much in touch with young people on the street.

I think that Ashley is providing a true public service by offering endorsements. All you have to do is vote for the candidate that Ashley does not endorse and you are almost guaranteed to pick the more qualified candidate.

"See this large space?" Scott asked, gesturing to the largely empty downtown CCB Plaza. "You have this wide-open space right here that's not even utilized. Why not have poetry readings, skateboarders, jugglers here? If [the city's current programs] were working, this place wouldn't be empty."

Oh, goodie! Now we have an excellent place for more UBUNTU dance recitals.

"Considerable media coverage greeted the welcome news last week that Duke has pledged $1.25 million over five years to expand the Law School’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic and Innocence Project."

There's been lots of hefty gifts coming Duke's way lately.

About a billion dollars has been gifted to their medical facility by the Murdock billionaire. He's a health nut and wants to promote studies of age-related diseases.

Very good.

However, I have my doubts about the law school's Wrongful Convictions Clinic. Holding my breath.

Sounds nice and cuddly, but where were these law professors from the Spring of 2006 until now? Where were they?

All of a sudden they've found religion and are excited about wrongful convictions?

Don't gloss over this issue.

Yes, Coleman spoke out...but IMO, not enough. He's a law professor, for G/d's sake. Why shouldn't he? And since he's a black law professor, it was a given that those supporting the innocent lacrosse players automatically elevated his very tepid--yet fair and logical--statements.

Coleman is no Kirsten Kimmel. Let's be clear about that right now.

I wasn't going to mention this, but the letter from Coleman to the N&O that has received so much praise on this blog even used a phrase authored by the Diva that I had already used in a scathing letter to the Herald Sun last--a month before Coleman spoke out publicly on anything.

Some intelligent observers of this case were much more insightful and certainly more prescient than many of the "experts" were.

And less encumbered as they with a need to be tepid and circumspect.

It galls me when looking back on what I and others wrote to the area editorial pages...LONG BEFORE people like Coleman decided it was not going to damage him to speak out.....were taken and used by them.

And I know Coleman reads the H-S and other local publications because he has sent in letters to them.

He was even late lambasting the H-S for the Ed Bradley smear....at least his letter came long after mine.

So, please. I have no "hero" appellations for such people.

They were doing their jobs; however, I would have chosen to be much more vocal and forceful if I were a law professor at the school where three young men were being railroaded.

I understand KC. I understand him well.

I adore him with a passion, but on this I cannot agree.

His semi-alliance with the people at the N&O was mandatory. And with Joe Neff, he had a true journalist with whom to correspond.

And I truly believe that he has an affection for James Coleman...and Coleman, no doubt, is a fine man.

He's just not a "hero". This new law clinic is designed mostly for minorities who are possibly falsely convicted. Otherwise, there would not be so much enthusiasm at Duke or from Coleman.

I'd like to believe in a kumbaya, but we all have lived through the last year and know better.

Let's not mince words.

To quote the much-maligned Rumsfeld......"You go to war with the army you have."

KC had to work with what he had in and around Duke and Durham to provide his stellar and enduring performance.

But I don't choose to romanticize some of these people. Given their positions, the law professors at Duke showed themselves to be a sorry lot.

Especially the great man of justice Erwin Chemerinsky.

Where was he when Reade, Collin, and David could have used his power at Duke?

Debrah said... ...TO GP--...Yes, the shift has already begun....The media--forget about the H-S as we know their position--are turning into a form of pre-disbarred-Nifong days....This is mostly because of a deep envy....Some expressed. Much not expressed....IMO, many people do not want to see already-affluent people "make out too well"....Mass schadenfreude always conquering::IMO, Schadenfreude or the enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others, would be sufficient reason for the feds to intervene.

Not wanting to see already-affluent people 'make out too well' is a communicable disease that could spread quickly to other communities where advocates for the poor wish to separate the affluent from their cash.

And the thought that federal grant dollars to a university are paying for this outbreak of schadenfeude is just beyond the pale.

This particular stain must be particularly virulent I would surmise, after reading KC's postings to Volokh today. Lots of new material and new actors for Joseph Conrad's ...The Heart of Darkness.::GP

The following entry appeared this morning (23 September) in the comments following the September 22 "Lubiano's Cover E-Mail" posting. It is an Anon comment and accordingly, impossible to authenticate, but if true it is a most telling, informative observation. I felt it was worthwhile to paste it here since a lot of you do not read previous comments after new subjects are posted.

Anonymous said...I actually attended the African American Studies Department town meeting at the Franklin Center which occurred right before the ad was published. That night Wanheema Lubiano presided over a panel of presenters and then moderated a passionate discussion with the audience. I was horrified at the tenor of the discussion, specifically, that I NEVER ONCE heard a single person use the word "alleged" or refer to "the incident" as anything other than a given. The meeting never pretended to discuss what might have happened, but rather, to discuss how to react to what had happened. Most important though, while I recognize some but not all of the quotes that appeared in the ad, in more or less the words that were used, there was NEVER, NOT ONCE, any attempt to ascertain the identity of the speakers, to determine if they were indeed Duke undergraduates, and if they were, if their words were specifically describing their experiences on Duke's campus as opposed to in life in general. It was my impression that many did not look young enough to be undergraduate students anywhere. Others clearly identified themselves as affiliated with NC Central. Others I recognized and knew as professors, some grad students, some activists.

I'm half-watching Stuart Taylor on C-Span. Stuart Taylor has two names of famous American generals. Before this blog ends, I have to ask if Taylor is related to Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor, who commanded a band of Texans in 1864 and though outnumbered almost 3:1 smashed a Yankee attempt to invade Texas.

How about Zachary Taylor? And I assume you're referring to James Ewell Brown Stuart._________________________________

I was also listening to Staurt Taylor and thought of a question that I have not seen asked nor answered to this point.

It is asserted that Mike Nifong's fundemental motivation related to his need for three years as a Durham DA so that he would receive his pension. My question is: Did his pension have a cliff vesting schedule -- i.e. unless he served those three additional years, he would receive nothing? Or did the additional three years mean that he would receive a full pension versus some smaller percentage of that full pension (90%, 75%, etc)?

If the former, then it seems to me that the criminal nature of his actions is all the more severe, for it would underscore the motive.

Inman, I believe that the pension issue was not so much a question of vesting but one of qualifying at a substanitally higher amount since he was DA.

Now there may have been a vesting element, which is why Nifong may have run after he told the Governor who appointed him that he would not. I always hold that as suspect since the Governor didn't seem to proclaim it a problem until after the boys innocence was proclaimed.

Other more knowledgable may be able to better detail Nifong's reasoning.

Yep, racist. You don't have to be extremely offensive to be racist. I figure most of you pat yourselves on the back and think your comments are just mighty fine since you're not David Duke acolytes. Racist, to be sure.

It is a no-brainer to invite a head of state to your university--especially a hostile one. I also believe Hitler would make an amazing Q&A participant. I'd love to know what his problem with Jews was, for example. Universities should not be cowed into inviting the usual safe mediocrities to campus (Hillary, Barack, George Will, et al) all the time. I'll take Hitler over Will any day of the week. By the way, has Will ever had an original idea?

Mr racism baiter (the guy who can't spell "identity"). I suggest you give precise examples of the offending remarks; then we may discuss it. You may have a point, but it's not to be made by name calling.

You may very well be right. If the per-term pension payment is a function of the last few years' salary, then Nifong may have been eligible for a higher payment if he retained (i.e. was elected to) the DA position. But many pension plans base the per-term payment on length of service and salary levels. A bump in salary might have had some effect, but the length of service in Nifong's case could have been the principal driver.

Unless, of course, either (a) there was some type of 'cliff' vesting or (b) Durham's pension plan is an artifact of the abacus era of mathematics.____________________________

4:42

Ordinary nastiness generally suffices. Hyperbolic nastiness is usually reserved for special guests.

Oh, and yes,...anyone who espouses indefensible positions regarding social dynamics and institutions ... who spew anathema at concepts underlying the Consitution and defense of Freedom ... who would gut that defense if they could endow a permanent Federal subsidy for all who claim an entitlement for whatever reason ... and then subsequently misrepresent their earlier stated, public position statements ...

After reading Debrah's comments at 1:28, I'm reminded that on both sides, there are two kinds of people. One kind wants to find a way to bridge the gap between 'us' and 'them', to find a way for people with differences to live together in peace so that things like this don't happen in future. And the other kind doesn't want that kind of peace and mutual respect. They can't imagine ever granting 'them' any measure of respect; after all, haven't 'they' proven over and over again how foul they are, how simultaneously stupid and sly, how untrustworthy? What those people desire is not an elimination of the us-vs.-them paradigm, but simply for "us" to be up, and "them" to be down.

I had not seen the previous post's comment reproduced by One Spook at 2:43, so I am glad that he or she included it here. While it is indeed impossible to determine if the anonymous poster truly attended, it not only seems authentic, it would also explain many of the observations later reproduced in the listening ad. The commenter indicated that there was no way of knowing if the speakers were Duke students, and that several looked too old to be students at all. If you look at the listening statement, there is only one quote that refers specifically to Duke, and that comes from The Independent (29 March 2006): “This is not a different experience here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists….It’s part of the experience.”

So while Lubiano and friends wrote an ad that was supposedly "built around student articulations" (according to her email that KC reproduced yesterday), even this justification might have been a fake. The famous listening ad could very well have been based on comments from random members of the community or students from NCCU.

Zachary is of course the father of Richard Taylor, and so they became one of the father-son duos who protected Texas -- Zachary from the Mexicans in 1846 and Richard from the Yankees in 1864. It's why I have a child named Taylor :)

What you saw in my post was shock that someone who is accomplished and holds a responsible position at an elite university is supposed to be granted "hero status" for doing what any decent person in his profession would have done.

In no way did I disrespect anyone.

...and you know it!

My senses tell me that you are the type of person out there we see everyday....who is not happy unless unearned accolades and overburdened praise are heaped on someone......

....simply because.

Because it is good for "race relations", but mostly because we are so relieved that someone went out of his way for some white guys.

I would have had no trouble at all working forcefully to help these men if they were black or any other group that might interest you.

The cause was and is for justice.

You see, the Diva has heaped a lifetime of praise on "people of color".....all her life. I was such a little friend of undue largesse that in school I was sometimes called a "n*****-lover" by the mean kids.

LOL!

I didn't care because I was smart and popular...and always the teachers' pet. It rolled right off.

Don't get me started on how I feel....that in the 21st century everyone isn't pulling their own weight by now.

Some of you guys are just finding it hard to grow up.

It's like a parent: I still love you all! But please take responsibility for your own lives and pay your way!

Stop expecting a free ride for everything...especially when you also wish to send three innocent men to prison for 30 years.

Quoth Debrah: "Just to drive reality home: Comments like yours serve to reinforce the quest to bring real justice and equality to this country.

"One or two groups of people cannot continue to subsidize the unproductive and destructive masses.

"Not just this country...but the entire world...saw what happened at Duke and in Durham. Many have opined that similar glossed-over injustices happen everyday [sic] where they live.

"Time to grow up. People have grown tired of pacifying career criminals and baby machines."

I maintain there is racist code in this post:

"1 or 2 groups subsidize the unproductive and destructive masses"--whom are you referring to, Debrah? The former? latter?

"pacifying career criminals and baby machines"--are any of the G88 career criminals or baby machines? Are you referring to black people? Why not just write it? Why resort to code? We're all adults here.

"1 or 2 groups subsidize the unproductive and destructive masses"--whom are you referring to, Debrah? The former? latter?

"pacifying career criminals and baby machines"--are any of the G88 career criminals or baby machines? Are you referring to black people? Why not just write it? Why resort to code? We're all adults here.

**********************************************

Crystal Gail Mangum is exhibit A......and there are so many more like her.

You keep flailing. This time, I fear you have bitten off more than you can chew.

You are not dealing with a little inexperienced-with-the-brothas-and-sistas-invertebrate.

You had better put on your game face if you want to dance with the Diva on this topic.

Wow, not ten minutes and someone's already swooping in to enforce the groupthink. "Debrah's comments reminded him that some people act less wonderfully than they could! There is absolutely no chance at all that this is a question upon which we might profitably engage in some introspection, to see if this is a trap we have fallen into! No, we must dismiss it without discussion as a "personal and substanceless attack" and accuse the person who had the temerity to suggest it of being without "courage and integrity"!"

Here's the facts: Debrah suggested that "This new law clinic is designed mostly for minorities who are possibly falsely convicted." If she's saying that the clinic will end up disproportionately aiding minorities because minorities are disproportionately the victims of prosecutorial misconduct, what is her objection to that? If she's saying that the new clinic is designed to serve minorities in preference to non-minorites in equal need -- where is her evidence for that claim? Then she goes on to claim that if not for this focus-or-bias towards minorities, "there would not be so much enthusiasm ... from Coleman." Where is her evidence for that claim? Oh, yes, I know what she has submitted for evidence -- she has submitted her perceptions that the first Duke professor to speak up did so "late", and was too "tepid and circumspect" when he did. But even if those were objective facts and not subjective perceptions -- how can it be evidence for Debrah's amazing smear against Coleman, claiming the counterfactual that he would have less enthusiasm for this law clinic if it benefitted everybody??

I don't think someone who has so often chosen to knowingly tell untruths about Darryl Hunt, deliberately omitting the fact that another man whose DNA matched that found on Deborah Sykes has confessed to the crime and said he acted alone, has much to tell anyone about "courage and integrity". Even if you were talking from a position of courage and integrity yourself, however, it really wouldn't change much -- trying to deny any possibility that a statement has truth by leveling personal attacks at the person who stated it is simply the ad hominem fallacy. No one needs to know who I am to decide whether they believe that some people have indeed fallen into this trap of thinking that "us vs. them" is the way it has to be.

It is all about the groupthink. Troll, moron and idiot are the words of group think. Obviously, they spend every waking moment on this blog. Anyone calling themselves the "diva" is as delusional as Crystal.

"If she's saying that the clinic will end up disproportionately aiding minorities because minorities are disproportionately the victims of prosecutorial misconduct, what is her objection to that?"

Let me make it very clear so that even an agenda-filled deliberate flamer-with-a-liberal-cause can understand.

Minorities in this country commit an overwhelmingly higher percentage of the crime.

It would follow that since they are constantly being arrested for those destructive efforts, and consequently, going through the justice system....the new law clinic at Duke will overwhelmingly benefit them before anyone else.

It is not my concern. It is my statement of fact.

I just wish that Coleman and his colleagues had been as animated and openly excited back in the Spring of 2006.

Try as you might, you can't make a Superman out of someone who simply did what any decent person should have done.

"My senses tell me that you are the type of person out there we see everyday....who is not happy unless unearned accolades and overburdened praise are heaped on someone......

....simply because."

Then I guess your senses are more accurately described as your wild guesses. You don't know who I am. You don't know how many months I have been posting here on this blog, posting on the injustices perpetrated by Nifong, Levicy, Addison, Gottlieb, Lubiano, Baker, Farred, Wilson (Linwood and Duff), Murphy and Grace and Goslee, Meehan and Stephens -- just to give a small cross-section. You know nothing about me at all, save that I had the temerity to suggest that some people on both sides were stuck looking at things only from an "us vs. them" perspective.

Have you said anything which would indicate I was wrong? Hardly! On the contrary! When merely suggesting that there is an "us vs. them" mentality causes you to lump me in with the "them":

"Stop expecting a free ride for everything...especially when you also wish to send three innocent men to prison for 30 years."

... well, obviously, the only way in which I was wrong was to not describe the "either you agree that we're right 100%, or you're one of them!" pathology that's so frequently co-morbid with the basic "us vs. them" limitation on thought.

No, here's the fact: 5:08 was a naked attempt at character assassination.

Your 6:08 post does at least contain some substance. Debrah can respond if she wants to. I have in the past agreed with her that the public reaction to the lacrosse hoax of most black people is, along with the OJ verdict, spittle on the faces of "white moderates".

Here's another fact: If you had courage and integrity you would admit that you've claimed for months that "DNA exonerated Darryl Hunt" before adopting sub rosamy argument -- that the only thing "exonerating" Darryl Hunt is the word of a confessed killer.

"Here's another fact: If you had courage and integrity you would admit that you've claimed for months that "DNA exonerated Darryl Hunt" before adopting sub rosa my argument -- that the only thing "exonerating" Darryl Hunt is the word of a confessed killer."

And the fact that there is no evidence that suggests Hunt was involved in Sykes' rape or murder, as determined by the Sykes Administrative Review Committee Report. You have known that for months, of course, and yet you always tell people falsehoods and mistruths instead, like 'just because the DNA evidence showed that Hunt didn't do the rape didn't mean he didn't do the murder' or 'there was so much evidence linking Hunt to the murder that he wouldn't dare risk a real trial' -- both completely false.

On the whole, I'm rather glad that you judge me as lacking courage and integrity -- if you told me that I did possess whatever qualities you are calling by those names, I'd immediately go into a frenzy of self-examination, trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong.

Last week, in an interview with Boston’s public radio station, Ashley was asked, given the repeated inaccuracies in his paper’s editorials, whether he feared a libel suit against the Herald-Sun.

His quite astonishing response? “That’s probably the sort of thing that’s best for me not to comment on, one way or the other, quite frankly.”

The only thing I find astonishing about it is that someone in Durham has the good sense to listen to their lawyer and not dig themselves in deeper. Compare to Nifong, Bell, Baker, Chalmers, Brodhead....

Camille Paglia:" ...all faculty members should vow, through their own scholarly idealism rather than by external coercion, not to impose their political or sexual ideology on impressionable students, who deserve better.”

Scholarly idealism. Hah. Those few like her or KC who possess any don't wind up at as liberal arts professors an "elite" institution.

The Sykes Report??? I hope everyone reads it. The authors of the Bowens-Chambers report certainly hope everyone will read the Sykes Report. Next to Sykes, Bowen-Chambers* looks superbly researched and balanced.

*Among other gems, Bowens-Chambers condemns the Duke police force for passing on information that CGM's story was not credible while calling Pres. Brodhead's "strong, consistent, and effective leadership".

I've noticed a higher degree of civility these days in some quarters: in recent years, if you held open a door for someone of another race, they often would march on through, as if you owed it to them. I noticed this trend in both races, and it was painful to watch.

Now, it seems, that there are people of goodwill who seem to appreciate nice gestures. Many folks see the precipice, and they're trying hard not to go there.

Not so the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and the Duke University AAS; not so, the extreme right - such as the socialists from Roanoke.

There are still too many - way too many - black folks who believe Nifong's evil tale. And there are way too many who believe that Mike Vick is being persecuted. They haven't rushed to aid another man, Ty Hilmo, who allegedly fed cats and kittens to his dog. They haven't rushed to help him, to defend him. If he's guilty, I hope he gets what Senator Byrd suggested from the Senate Floor for people engaged in dogfighting. I hope he and Vick share similar fates, if he's found guilty.

The Duke lacrosse hoax has shown how bad things have gotten. This, and other cases. I still have a fair degree of hope, that there still is a better hope, and that perhaps the hope will begin with simple acts of kindness, like holding a door open and being civil, learning to smile and to actually mean it.

This lesson will certainly be lost on those trolls who post here, bent upon mayhem, calling names and inciting racial hatred.

We won't get there on the path the academic world is providing, for sure: there are way too many 88-ers, and too few KC Johnsons and Steven Horwitzs.

The recent N&O editorial and these subsequent letters...along with the Barry Saunders diatribe and the N&O's "public editor" Ted Vaden acting as flea-bitten apologist for Saunders.....

....are all the News & Observer's way of telling the public where they expect things to go.

They are telling the black community who essentially supported the railroading of three innocent men....

"We are back inside your pocket. We certainly do not support innocent people being sent to prison; however, we are with you. These rich white boys have had enough kid-glove treatment. They are safe now and remember one thing----(They're not saints! They hired strippers! And......they're--gasp!--white!!!!! We are finished padding their affluent azzes. You can count on us to be gettin' busy on the downlow widcha. The N&O izza comin' home!"

I'm glad KC will not be around to see how they turn the Pulitzer-esque reporting of Joe Neff into another nosedive into the squalor and insanity of Durham activists.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review